Feb. 9, 2013

Fort Collins City Councilman Wade Troxell has filed a campaign finance complaint regarding these signs, paid for by the registered statewide issue committee Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, which urged yes votes on both the local and statewide marijuana questions on the November 2012 ballot. / Courtesy of Wade Troxell

Written by

City councilmen are citizens too. In that capacity, anti-marijuana crusader and Fort Collins City Councilman Wade Troxell filed a campaign finance complaint with the city associated with Measure 301, which voters passed to overturn the city’s ban on medical marijuana businesses.

“I don’t want any special treatment on this,” Troxell said. “I filed this as a private citizen, not a member of council. I know it’s hard to decouple those two, but I was actively involved to defeat ballot Measure 301 as a private citizen, and I don’t want any unfair treatment.”

Troxell alleges proponents of Measure 301 benefited from the support of powerful pro-marijuana interests outside of Fort Collins that blurred the lines between Colorado’s Amendment 64 to legalize recreational marijuana and the local ballot question to reinstate medical marijuana dispensaries. Both propositions passed.

Troxell’s complaint points to signs paid for by the registered statewide issue committee Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the fundraising apparatus behind Amendment 64, which urged yes votes on both the local and statewide marijuana questions.

The complaint also singles out a phone bank based in Fort Collins where calls to voters urging support of Amendment 64 and Measure 301 originated. The phone bank was staffed by volunteers and organized by the Organization of Cannabis Professionals in conjunction with statewide pro-marijuana policy nonprofit Sensible Colorado, which lent its website to the cause.

The group is registered with the IRS as a 501(c)3, one type of nonprofit that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling enabled to accept unlimited money from undisclosed donors and pass it along to support or oppose political issues.

Troxell’s complaint accuses Sensible Colorado of violating city election rules by failing to register here as an issue committee. Vicente said his organization’s involvement in Measure 301 did not require it to register a committee locally.

(Page 2 of 3)

“To the best of my knowledge, Sensible Colorado incurred no expenses whatsoever in relation to any phone bank for Initiative 301,” Vicente said. “And all referenced yard signs were approved in advance by the Fort Collins City Clerk’s Office.”

City Clerk Wanda Nelson confirmed that her office received an anonymous call in the run-up to the campaign that matches Vicente’s account.

“Someone not saying who they were asked if two different committees could team up on a yard sign,” she said. “(The deputy clerk) said there was nothing in the city’s election code prohibiting it.”

Soon afterward, signs paid for by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol began cropping up. They urged votes in favor of both Amendment 64 and Measure 301. Sensible Colorado contributed about $15,000 to the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol during the 2012 election cycle, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

In its campaign finance disclosures to the city, the Boulder-based Organization of Cannabis Professionals reported a $973 in-kind donation of yard signs from the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.

Despite the committee’s disclosure, Troxell contends that the groups rallying support for Measure 301 were less than transparent and, more over, that external forces outside of Fort Collins are helping to shape its future. Current city campaign finance codes do not prohibit contributions from outside of Fort Collins, much to Troxell’s consternation.

“It suggests to me that Fort Collins’ election laws are incomplete and antiquated,” he said. “The city and city council need to address it. When outside spending is forming our ordinances, that is problematic. Our community is being swamped by outside influence.”

The councilman insists his motive for filing the campaign grievance is not sour grapes, but a desire to improve the city’s campaign finance guidelines and enforcement of those already on the books. Troxell was active in the campaign to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in Fort Collins, and he and his wife contributed to the Vote Against 301 issue committee during the November campaign.

(Page 3 of 3)

If the campaign complaint is upheld, fines could be imposed, but the election could not be overturned.

“It won’t change the outcome of the election, nor should it,” Troxell said. “If it serves to improve our elections, then that’s enough for me.”

He has objected to council’s adoption of the code changes in Measure 301 in part because of the unresolved campaign complaint that he initiated.

Troxell’s complaint triggered an investigation that required the city to hire an outside contractor to avoid conflict of interest. After all, the city attorney and the city manager are central to the campaign finance complaint process, and Troxell sits on the board that evaluates both positions and sets their pay.

Troxell said he has no regrets about the awkward situation his complaint has created for Fort Collins City Manager Darin Atteberry by forcing him to decide its merits.

“He’s always in a difficult spot, always in the political crosshairs of the community and council,” Troxel said. “He faces lots of decisions like that.”

Last week the independent investigator hired by the city to explore the complaint, Greenwood Village lawyer Scott Krob, submitted a report with his findings to Atteberry, according to City Attorney Steve Roy.

The report will be one factor in Atteberry’s decision whether any city campaign finance rules were violated by proponents of Measure 301. Roy said until Atteberry makes a decision, the report will not be publicly released. Even after a decision is made, he said, it could remain under seal depending on the outcome.

A Coloradoan request is pending pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act to inspect the report and the costs to the city associated with hiring an outside investigator.

Roy said the city took that extraordinary step because of Troxell’s involvement.

“It’s standard when we have a situation where our office may have a conflict of interest,” Roy said. “When a council member is involved in a conflict in any capacity, we hire outside contractors.”

Troxell dismissed the notion that the city is throwing away money frivolously on his complaint.

“The city spends a lot of money on a lot of different things,” he said. “Frankly, our elections are one thing that needs to be honest and open and straight forward, so I think pursuing a complaint that I think has merit is worthwhile.”